Investigating the Effect of Corrective Feedback on Second Language Pragmatics: Face-to-Face vs. Technology-Mediated Communication
By
Marziyeh Yousefi
B.A., Shiraz Azad University, 2000 M.A., Alzahra University, 2002
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy In the Department of Linguistics
©Marziyeh Yousefi, 2020 University of Victoria
All rights reserved. This dissertation may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without the permission of the author.
Supervisory Committee
Investigating the Effect of Corrective Feedback on Second Language Pragmatics: Face-to-Face vs. Technology-Mediated Communication
By
Marziyeh Yousefi
B.A., Shiraz Azad University, 2000 M.A., Alzahra University, 2002
Supervisory Committee
Dr. Hossein Nassaji, Department of Linguistics, University of Victoria Supervisor
Dr. John Archibald, Department of Linguistics, University of Victoria Departmental Member
Dr. Ulf Schuetze, Department of Germanic and Slavic Studies, University of Victoria Outside member
Abstract
Pragmatics “focuses on how people perform, interpret, and respond to language functions in a social context” (Taguchi, 2012, p.1), and therefore its development is key to the
development of language competence. Pragmatics entails both linguistic knowledge to perform language functions (pragmalinguistics) and knowledge about the appropriateness of linguistic forms in a given social context (sociopragmatics) (Thomas, 1983). The acquisition of this skill has been shown to be one of the most difficult and latest acquired aspects of L2 learning
(Bardovi-Harlig & Vellenga, 2012), and in this context, corrective feedback (information about the accuracy of learners’output), has been considered to be essential to the mastery of this knowledge. This study attempted to answer whether corrective feedback on L2 request and refusal forms provided through Face-to-Face (FF) or through Technology-Mediated (TM) modes can lead to an improvement in the learners’ performance in comprehension and production.
Forty-four ELL students in three parallel intact classes were chosen to participate in the study. A Role-play test was used to collect production data and a multiple-choice discourse completion test was used to gather comprehension data. A mixed-model Analysis of Variance was conducted to examine the main and interaction effects of the treatment (corrective
feedback), delivery mode (FF and TM), speech act type (request and refusal), and time (pre-test, post-test, and delayed post-test).
The results demonstrated that CF led to improved performance in L2 pragmatics. Significant effects for corrective feedback were clear for both pragmatic comprehension and production, and there was no difference between comprehension and production improvement. Furthermore, the results showed that both FF and TM corrective feedback were effective
modalities for improving pragmatic production while only TM delivery was effective in comprehending the target speech acts. The findings of the present study also suggest that CF effects were durable both in production and comprehension. The possibility of the effects of type of speech acts in influencing CF effects was generally rejected as CF improved comprehending and producing both speech acts significantly. In summary, the findings of the study generally support the application of CF and technology to the acquisition of second language pragmatic ability.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Supervisory Committee ... ii
Abstract ... iii
Table of Contents ... v
List of Tables ... viii
List of Figures ... ix
Acknowledgements ... xi
Dedication ... xiii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.0 Introduction ...1
1.1 Background and Purpose of the Study ...1
1.2 Rationale of the Study ...9
1.3 Statement of the Problem ...10
1. 4 Significance of the Study ...10
1.5 Definitions of Terms in the Study ...12
1.6 Outline of the Dissertation ...16
1.7 Summary ...17
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.0 Introduction ... 19
2.1 Pragmatics ...19
2.2 Pragmatic Competence ...20
2.3 Theoretical Frameworks... 25
2.3.1 Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis ... 25
2.3.2 Long’s Interaction Hypothesis ...29
2.3.3 Speech Act Theory ...31
2.3.4 Conversation Principle of Cooperation ...34
2.3.5 Politeness Theory ...36
2.4 Request and Refusal as Speech Acts ...39
2.5 Data Elicitation Tools in L2 Pragmatics ...46
2.5.1 Comprehension Test: Multiple-Choice Discourse Completion Test (MDCT) ...47
2.5.2 Production Test: Role-Play Test (RP) ... 50
2.6 A Review of Literature on L2 Pragmatics Research ...52
2.7 Corrective Feedback... 59
2.8 Technology and Language Instruction ... 78
2.9 Research Questions ... 87
2.10 Chapter Summary...94
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.0 Introduction ...95
3.1 Overall Design ... 95
3.2 Participants ...96
3.3 Instructional Materials ... 101
3.4 Data Collection Instruments ...105
3.4.1 Comprehension test: Multiple-choice Discourse Completion Test (MDCT) .... ...105
3.4.2 Production Test: Oral Role-play Test (RP) ...109
3.5 Pilot Study ...113
3.6 Treatment Procedure ... 117
3.7 Data Collection Procedure ...126
3.8 Scoring Procedures of MDCT and RP ...128
3.9 Summary ...134
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS 4.0 Introduction ...136
4.1 Normality Test ...137
4.2 Statistical Analyses Used in the Study ...138
4.2.1 Mixed-Model ANOVA ...140
4.2.2 One-Way ANOVA ...143
4.2.3 Effect Size ...143
4.3 Research Question 1: The Overall Effect Corrective Feedback ...144
4.3.1 CF Effects: Production Results ...145
4.3.2 CF Effects: Comprehension Results ...148
4.4 Research Question 2: The Differential Effects of Corrective Feedback on ... Comprehension vs. Production……… ...151
4.5 Research Question 3: Delivery Mode of Corrective Feedback: The Comparison... Between Face-to-Face and Technology-Mediated Groups...152
4.5.1 Delivery Mode: Production Results ...153
4.5.2 Delivery Mode: Comprehension Results ...153
4.6 Research Question 4: The Type of Speech Act and Corrective Feedback Effects ... ……….154
4.6.1 Request and Refusals: Production Results ...154
4.6.2 Requests and Refusals: Comprehension Results ...159
4.7 Research Question 5: The Retention of Corrective Feedback Effects in ... Comprehension and Production………..164
4.7.1 Retention of CF Effects: Production Results ...164
4.7.2 Retention of CF Effects: Comprehension Results ...165
4.8 Summary………168
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 5.0 Introduction ...170
5.1 The Overall Effect of Corrective Feedback ...171
5.2 The Differential Effects of Corrective Feedback on Comprehension and Production ...174
5.3 Delivery Mode of Corrective Feedback ...175
5.5 The Retention of Corrective Feedback Effects in Comprehension and Production ...
...183
5.6 Summary of Questions and Findings ...186
5.7 Theoretical Contributions ...187
5.8 Pedagogical Implications ...190
5.8.1 Enhancing Opportunities for Interaction and Corrective Feedback in the Classroom ...190
5.8.2 Applying Technology in Pragmatics Instruction ...194
5.9 Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research ...196
5.10 Concluding Thoughts ...204
REFERENCES ...205
APPENDIX A: PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM ...236
APPENDIX B: BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE... 240
APPENDIX C: TEACHER’S COPY ...242
APPENDIX D: HAND OUT 1 ...245
APPENDIX E: HAND OUT 2 ...247
APPENDIX F: WORKSHEET 1 ...248
APPENDIX G: WORKSHEET 2 ...249
APPENDIX H: ROLE-PLAY CARDS ...250
APPENDIX I: PRE-TEST ...253
APPENDIX J: IMMEDIATE POST-TEST...260
APPENDIX K: DELAYED POST-TEST ...267
APPENDIX L ROLE-PLAY RATING MANUAL AND RUBRICS ...274
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Types of act: Locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary ...33
Table 2.2 Grice’s (1975) Conversational Maxims ...35
Table 2.3 Request strategies ...41
Table 2.4 Classification of refusals ...43
Table 3.1 CLB and CEFR side-by-side comparison ... 98
Table 3.2 Groups sample size ...101
Table 3.3 Pearson Correlation Inter-rater reliability results in the RP test ...112
Table 3.4 Instructional Procedures for FF and TM, and Control Group ...125
Table 4.1 Normality tests on MDCT and RP tests...138
Table 4.2 Descriptive statistics: Means of 3 groups in pre-test ...139
Table 4.3 One-Way Analysis of Variance of Production Pre-test ...139
Table 4.4 Kruskal-Wallis Analysis of Variance of Comprehension Pre-test ...139
Table 4.5 Group Means of the Production Scores through Three Times ...145
Table 4.6 Mauchly’s Test of Sphericity (production) ...145
Table 4.7 Mixed-model ANOVA tests of CF; main and interaction effects in production ...146
Table 4.8 One-Way Analysis of Variance of Production scores in Immediate and Delayed Post-test………147
Table 4.9 Group Means of the Comprehension Scores through Three Times...148
Table 4.10 Mauchly’s Test of Sphericity (comprehension) ...149
Table 4.11 Mixed-model ANOVA tests of CF; main and interaction effects in comprehension ...149
Table 4.12 One-Way Analysis of Variance of Comprehension scores in Immediate and Delayed Post-test……….150
Table 4.13Mixed-model ANOVA tests of speech act type; main and interaction effects in production ...154
Table 4.14 One-way ANOVA on the speech acts in production ...156
Table 4.15 Mixed ANOVA, main and interaction effects related to speech act type in comprehension ...159
Table 4.16 One-way ANOVA on requests and refusals in comprehension ...161
Table 4.17 Multiple pairwise comparisons in production scores ...165
Table 4.18 Multiple pairwise comparisons in comprehension scores ...166
Table 4.19 Summary of Research Questions and Findings ...168
List of Figures and Pictures
Figure 2.1 Bachman's communicative competence model ...21
Figure 2.2 General pragmatics, pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics ... 23
Figure 2.3 CF types ... 60
Figure 2.4 Type and subtypes of interactional feedback ...62
Figure 3.1 Study design ...95
Figure 3.2 The research design as proposed initially and used in the pilot study...114
Figure 3.3 Research design of the main study ...117
Figure 3.4 Data collection procedure ...127
Figure 4.1 Comprehension and production of the three groups over the three time points ... ...152
Figure 4.2 Speech acts of request and refusal in RP measure (production) ...156
Figure 4.3 Speech acts of request and refusal in MDCT measure (comprehension) ...160
Figure 4.4 Interaction of time by speech act type by group...163
Figure 4.5 The three groups performance on the RP pre-test and the two post-tests ...167
Figure 4.6 The three groups performance on the MDCT pre-test and the two post-tests ... ...167
Picture 3.1 Group video & voice call in WeChat ...120
Picture 3.2 Screenshot of teacher’s mobile screen giving feedback to a pair in TM group .. ...120
The following acronyms are used throughout the dissertation, listed here for easy reference:
L1 - Native Language of the learner(s) L2- Second Language
NSs - Native Speakers of a Language NNSs - Non-Native Speakers of a Language DCT - Discourse Completion Task
MDCT - Multiple-Choice Discourse Completion Task RP-Role-Play
ESL - English as a Second Language CF- Corrective Feedback
FF- Face-to-Face
Acknowledgements
I would never be able to present this project as it is today without the help of many people who have supported me both personally and academically during the completion of this dissertation. First, I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Hossein Nassaji who helped me with the design and actualization of this study. Without his academic excellence and his impressive knowledge, this work could have never seen the light.
Also, I would like to express my gratitude to other committee members. My wholehearted appreciation goes to Dr. John Archibald who provided valuable input and continuous support throughout the project. Your insightful comments, discerning thoughts, encouragement, and support are a supervisor’s model to emulate. I wish to extend my
indebtedness to Dr. Ulf Schuetze for his invaluable advice and insightful suggestions both during data collection and during my writing up the thesis. Your constructive feedback cannot be
thanked enough. My earnest thanks to go, for all of you who you have assisted me to pursue excellence and success.
I would also like to express my gratitude to University of Victoria English Language Centre and Intercultural Association of Victoria LINC staff who allowed me to collect data from their schools, and supported in many other ways during the data collection. I am also grateful for the equipment and assistance provided by the University of Victoria Libraries, particularly, Pat Szpak. My thanks also go to all research participants including the Pilot, the Control and the Treatment Groups who took part in this study. Clearly, without the support of these people, it was not possible to collect the data.
I acknowledge the financial support I received during my doctoral program. Thank you to the University of Victoria for the entrance scholarship. Thank you also to the Department of
Linguistics for employing me as a teaching assistant, and thanks to the Financial Aid Services at the University of Victoria who helped me with graduate bursaries.
Last but not least, I would like to thank and express my deepest gratitude to my husband, Amir, whose support and patience motivated me throughout my postgraduate study especially when encountering with the challenges. I would like to particularly dedicate this research to the purest soul, my daughter, Nika. I sincerely could not have made it without your gracious patience. Your moments of loneliness when I was away mentally and physically could not have achieved less than this. You are my source for life; I am really indebted to you my angel. I would also like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my parents who were always there for me with their ceaseless encouragement and mentoring. To them, I dedicate all the honor attained on earning this degree
Dedications
For Amir and Nika: None of this would have been possible without your sacrifices and support. I love you.
CHAPTER ONE- INTRODUCTION
1.0 Introduction
The present study aims at investigating the effects of corrective feedback (CF) on the comprehension and production of English speech acts of requests and refusals. The purpose of the study is to test the effects of corrective feedback using Face-to-Face (FF) classroom and Technology-Mediated (TM) delivery modes under the assumption that interaction and noticing pave the way for L2 acquisition (Long, 1996; Schmidt, 1993). This chapter provides an
introduction and the background to the entire study. The background information includes the current problem, the rationale, and the significance of the study. The definitions of terms used in the present study will be presented next. Finally, the outline of the thesis and a summary are briefly described.
1.1 Background and Purpose of the Study
Through globalization the worldwide demand for effective communication in the English language has increased. Adopting a communicative approach to language pedagogy has placed more emphasis on achieving the functional component of the L2 along with its linguistic
component. In order to become a fully competent speaker in another language, we must have not only linguistic knowledge but also learn the rules of proper communication, such as how to speak appropriately in a situation or understand another person’s intention. “Pragmatics, a subject within linguistics, focuses on how people perform, interpret, and respond to language functions in a social context” (Taguchi, 2012, p.1). Levinson (1983) defines pragmatics as “the study of language use” (p.5). Related to pragmatics are speech acts, which are the actions that speakers can perform with language. For example, language is used to make requests, give
compliments, make complaints, and accept invitations among other things (Loewen, 2015). An often-used example of a pragmatic phenomenon is when someone says “it’s cold,” while in the context of a window being open, and even perhaps looking meaningfully at the person closest to the window. This sentence might intend the meaning of a polite request to please close the window (Culpeper, Mackey, & Taguchi, 2018, p. 25).
The present study is located in classroom research on second language (L2) pragmatics, which is the interface of pragmatics, second language acquisition and educational research. Kasper and Schmidt (1996) originally defined L2 pragmatics as the “the study of the development and use of strategies for linguistic action by nonnative speakers” (p.150).
L2 pragmatics also investigates how pragmatic competence “may be affected by
instruction or developed “in the wild” (e.g., study abroad, workplace, and immigration contexts)” (González-Lloret, 2019, p.114).
The development of pragmatic competence implies developing both the linguistic structure of pragmatics (pragmalinguistics) and contextual features of pragmatics
(sociopragmatics) (Thomas, 1983). According to Taguchi (2012, p.1), “pragmalinguistics refers to the linguistic forms available to perform language functions, while sociopragmatics refers to the appropriateness of the linguistic forms in a given social context”. Learners need to learn a range of linguistic forms to perform language functions (e.g., learn English modals to perform requests), but at the same time, they need to understand the sociocultural norms and rules that govern the usage of these forms (e.g., what to say to request something from a certain person). If L2 learners fail in any of the above aspects of pragmatic ability, a communication failure may occur (Taguchi, 2012). An example of pragmalinguistic failure given by Thomas (1983, p. 101) happened in Russian ESL classrooms. The teacher asked learners during reading activities, ‘X,
would you like to read?’ to which learners repeatedly responded ‘no, I wouldn’t’. The author explains that learners failed to recognize that the teacher was making a request. Thus, they did not mean to be rude; they thought, instead, that their preferences were being consulted.
Moreover, according to Thomas (1983), pragmatic failure could occur either as a result of learners misunderstanding what a speaker of a TL says, or when learners produce inappropriate expressions that don’t meet the TL pragmatics or cultural norms. Therefore, when it comes to teaching or measuring learners’ pragmatic ability, “both comprehension and production should be equally important” (Yamashita, 2008, p. 203). While there are studies examining either pragmatic comprehension (e.g., Taguchi, 2007, 2008, 2011) or pragmatic production (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig, 2009, 2014), there are few studies that compare the effect of instruction on both comprehension and production. This comparison and inclusion of both skills gives a more comprehensive picture of learners’ pragmatic competence.
The acquisition of L2 pragmatics is considered to be one of the most difficult and latest acquired aspects of L2 learning (Bardovi-Harlig & Vellenga, 2012). The lack of L2 pragmatic skill is often viewed not as a linguistic deficit when the pragmatic rules are broken, but as a character trait-the speaker is rude, arrogant, pushy, et cetera (Nguyen, 2013). Thus, as Loewen points out, “Learners’ L2 pragmatics errors outside of the classroom may have larger social consequences than errors in other linguistic areas” (p. 128). According to Kim (2014), “If pragmatic competence is vital, not only to successful communication, but also to successful integration to the target culture and community, then it is also vital that English teachers help their learners develop this important feature of language competence” (p. 32).
Including pragmatics in L2 instruction is necessary because according to Schmidt (1993), “simple exposure to the target language is insufficient-pragmatic functions and relevant
contextual factors are often not salient to learners and so not likely to be noticed even after prolonged exposure” (cited in Kasper & Rose, 2001, p. 237). Thus, in addition to opportunities for meaning-focused communication, learners also need opportunities for attention to pragmatic form. Along this line of thinking, Long (1991) proposed Focus on Form (FonF) approach to L2 learning. According to Long and Robinson (1998), FonF “consists of an occasional shift of attention to linguistic code features – by the teacher and/or one or more students – triggered by perceived problems with comprehension or production” (p. 23). Focus on Form can be
accomplished in various ways. One way to direct learners’ attention to L2 pragmatics features is through providing interactional feedback. Nassaji, (2015) defines interactional feedback as “feedback generated implicitly or explicitly through negotiation and modification processes that occur during interaction to deal with communication or linguistic problems” (p. 536). He further discusses that interactional feedback integrates attention to form and attention to meaning in a communicative context because it is a response to learner errors during meaning-focused interaction. More specifically, this study employs a relatively explicit type of interactional feedback, i.e. corrective recast and defines it as a type of interactional feedback that is designed to be implicit enough so as not to alter communication, and yet salient enough so as to be potentially effective (Nassaji & Fotos, 2011).
Another reason to use this FonF approach was the lack of research on corrective feedback in the area of L2 pragmatics. While the effects of corrective feedback on L2 grammatical
development has been widely examined (e.g., Ammar & Spada, 2006; Doughty & Varela, 1998; Ellis 2009; Li 2010; Lyster & Saito 2010; Lyster et al. 2013; Russell & Spada 2006; Sheen 2010a), studies on the role of feedback in teaching L2 pragmatics have been neglected. According to Nguyen, Pham and Pham (2017 p. 46), “since much focus-on-form literature
addresses L2 grammatical development, more research is needed in the area of L2 pragmatic development”.
Focus-on-form instruction can be delivered through different modalities such as Face-to-Face (FF) and Technology-Mediated (TM) modes. The importance of TM learning is evident especially when Face-to-Face learning is not possible. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019-2020, many educational institutions around the world had to abruptly and comprehensively utilize technology in support of remote learning, distance education and online learning. As schools across the world temporarily closed to help contain the spread of the virus, educators around the world turned to remote learning as a way to keep their various-level students engaged. Meanwhile, technology is playing a key role to facilitate learning and TM learning is gradually becoming a “new normal” for education.
In language learning, there is a growing body of research on the role of technology including computer-mediated communication or CMC (Chapelle & Jamieson, 2008; Plonsky & Ziegler, 2016). In CMC, computers are a means through which teachers communicate with learners, learners communicate with one another and learners may even communicate with native speakers (telecollaboration). In CMC environments, non-native speakers can
communicate with NSs or with each other, and the instructor can be present or not. Such
communication takes place through variations in the following elements: timing (synchronous or asynchronous), number and patterning of participants (one-to-one, one-to-many, or many-to-many), and medium (text, voice, or video). In addition, the physical properties of the device may offer a significant variable, such as the difference between email on a computer and text
Various forms of technology can be applied to instructional settings such as audio/video materials (e.g., videos on YouTube, video CDs with textbooks) and various forms of online applications (e.g., email, forums, blogs, fandoms, Duolingo). Computer-mediated
communication tools (CMC) can be in the form of asynchronous text-based communication such as Email and course management systems like Blackboard (www.blackboard.com), and Moodle (www.moodle.org). CMC can also be in real time with synchronous text, or chat, as well as synchronous audio and video communication. Some examples include video-conferencing tools such as Skype (http://www.skype.com) and Google hangouts (https://hangouts.google.com/). Another area for CMC is the virtual world, like Second Life (www.secondlife.com;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdkz59vfn3g). In virtual worlds students have avatars that can move in a 3D environment and interact with other avatars. CMC tools have been gaining increasing attention in the research literature (González-Lloret, 2019). However, as Belz (2007) argues:
Although these phenomena have prompted intense study in a wide variety of other disciplines, including communication theory, cultural studies, education, linguistics, and sociology…. few studies have appeared that address the roles of (CMC) in particular in the development of L2 pragmatic competence. (p. 46)
In light of the positive effects of technology in other language learning areas “such as studies of vocabulary acquisition and grammatical development” (González-Lloret, 2019, p. 113), the present study integrates technology as a delivery system of pragmatic instruction to ESL learners. More specifically, this study applies (one-to-one) leaner-to-learner interaction for performing the target speech acts in role-play tasks as well as three-way interaction between two learners and the teacher (learner-learner-teacher) for receiving corrective feedback during
role-play tasks (see 2.8 and 3.6 for more details). These effects will be compared to the traditional FF classrooms to provide ESL educators with potential benefits of each mode. This study examines the strength of the connection between L2 pragmatic instruction and technology by measuring the differences between the effects of two modes of corrective feedback; Technology-Mediated (TM) and traditional classroom Face-to-Face (FF) feedback on the development of two English speech acts of requests and refusals.
The inclusion of technology in this study has two main objectives. First, it seeks to add to the body of empirical CMC research surrounding the effects of the use of CMC as an
instructional tool. Second, it aims to demonstrate how different types of modalities (FF and TM) in delivering corrective recast can best be used as effective tools for L2 pragmatic instruction.
The pragmatic features used in this study are the speech acts of request and refusal (see section 2.2.4 for a detailed discussion). The reason for choosing these two speech acts as target structures is to distinguish corrective feedback effects on different speech act types. This can help explore whether the relative complexity of pragmatic features can influence learning. Research findings on how complex and simple rules respond to instruction and feedback are mixed (Nassaji, 2015). For example, while some studies have shown that feedback may be more effective for simple rules (Williams & Evans, 1998), others have found that feedback might be equally effective for both simple and complex rules (Housen et al., 2005; Robinson, 1996). Also, in a meta-analysis, Spada and Tomita (2010) found no relationship between rule complexity and effectiveness of feedback. Such discrepancies in research findings and the lack of such research in the area of L2 pragmatics motivates this study to further examine if the benefits of corrective feedback vary depending on the type of the speech act targeted. Although there are
(Spada & Tomita, 2010), this study defines complexity in terms of the number of acts to make an appropriate speech act structure. In L2 pragmatics, while requests can be expressed with a single direct or indirect statement or question, appropriate refusals usually consist of a number of acts which require multiple strategies. Refusals can be seen as a series of: (1) pre-refusal strategies (i.e. strategies that prepare the addressee for an upcoming refusal), (2) main refusal strategies (i.e. head act that expresses the refusal), and (3) post-refusal strategies (i.e. strategies that follow the head act to justify, mitigate, or conclude the refusal response). The following examples demonstrate request and refusal speech acts and the number of acts needed to make them polite and appropriate.
Example 1 Polite request in American English (Tytar, 2015, p. 6) John (1), close the window, please (2). I am terribly cold (3).
Example 2 Polite refusal in American English (Eslami, 2010, p. 236) Bethany: Do you wanna see a movie tomorrow?
Judy: Uhm (1), I’d love to (2). Sorry (3), but I have to study for an exam tomorrow (4). Next week maybe? (5)
A more detailed explanation and discussion on English requests and refusals is presented in the next chapter (section 2.2.4).
The two theoretical foundations of the present study are the noticing hypothesis
(Schmidt, 1993), and the interaction hypothesis (Long, 1996). The concept of noticing has been used both in the literature on the language acquisition theory and also frequently in the literature on corrective feedback. As Nassaji (2015) mentions, “In the former, it has been used as a
necessary process in language acquisition. In the latter, it has been used as a reason for why errors need to be corrected” (p.11). Noticing hypothesis states that “L2 learners’ attention to
linguistic form is a necessary condition for development” (Culpeper et al., 2018, p.15). Thus, based on Schmidt’s claim, input leads to acquisition only if learners notice the input. This theoretical claim has been tested in a number of studies of L2 pragmatics (e.g., Belz &
Kinginger, 2003; Fordyce, 2014). While the noticing hypothesis emphasizes the role of attention, “interaction approaches highlight the role of corrective feedback in the process of L2 pragmatic development” (Culpeper et al., 2018, p. 16). According to Swain and Lapkin (1995), language learning takes place while learners engage in conversational interaction, receive feedback, and struggle to reformulate and make their output comprehensible to their interlocutors. The key constructs of conversational interaction research include input, output, and corrective feedback through interaction (Gass & Mackey, 2006a). More details on the theoretical framework of the study are presented in chapter two (section 2.4).
1.2 The Rationale for the Study
There are two main rationales for the present study. The first is that while instructional effects on L2 pragmatics have been investigated widely (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; Félix-Brasdefer, 2008a; Kasper & Rose, 2001; Koike & Pearson, 2005; Martinez-Flor et al., 2003; Rose 2005), the effect of providing corrective feedback in this domain remains rather
unexplored. As a result, while the benefit of explicit instruction has been documented in previous research (e.g. see Jeon & Kaya, 2006; Rose, 2005; Takahashi, 2010; Takimoto, 2012), it remains little known how different types of feedback impact L2 pragmatics learning. From another perspective, although there is a wealth of research on the effect of different types of feedback in the areas of grammar, lexis and phonology, (See Nassaji, 2015; Nassaji & Kartchava, 2017 for a synthesis on recent works on corrective feedback in L2 teaching and learning), the effect of different types of feedback on interlanguage pragmatic development has been explored far less.
This study brings both areas of corrective feedback and L2 pragmatic together to contribute to both fields.
The second rationale for the study is that most of the research on pragmatics has been either in Face-to-Face (FF) or Technology-Mediated communication (TM) modes. Very few studies have compared the effect of corrective feedback on pragmatics across the two modes. Such comparisons are important as they can indicate which mode may be more conducive to language learning (Rouhshad, Wigglesworth & Storch, 2016).
The current study, therefore, aims to fill the research gap by investigating the impact which FF and TM feedback modes have on the development of two pragmatic targets in English by ESL learners which is accomplished through a pre-test, post-test and delayed post-test design. 1.3 Statement of the Purpose
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of corrective feedback on pragmatics across the two modes of TM and FF to determine which is more effective. This provides the opportunity to explore not only efficacy of CF in a different domain (L2 pragmatics), but also to examine the potential differences between recasts delivered in TM vs. FF modes. The pragmatic features used in this study are English request and refusal forms.
1.4 Significance of the Study
The goal of this study is to contribute to the existing literature on pedagogical
intervention in the development of ESL learners’ pragmatic competence. Applicability of the findings from this investigation will be extended to both theoretical and pedagogical contexts. In regard to research, the present study will add another dimension to instruction of pragmatics by employing recasting as a focus-on-form condition. Although the role of CF in the development of formal aspects of language has been widely investigated (e.g., Ellis, 2009; Mackey & Goo,
2007; Nassaji, 2011a; Panova & Lyster, 2002; Sheen, 2007), little research has addressed the influence of CF in the pragmatic development of language learners. This study addresses the limitations of the previous studies and provides several contributions to the theoretical understanding of the role of CF in L2 pragmatics.
Moreover, the present study will examine if FF and TM feedback methods can be used effectively in the instruction of pragmatic competence. The retention effect will also be checked so as to investigate the durability of the feedback effect in instructional L2 pragmatic studies.
Furthermore, the two speech act types of request and refusal will be investigated in order to find out if the benefits of corrective feedback may vary depending on the type of speech act targeted. In the area of L2 pragmatics research, there is very limited effort in understanding the interaction between pragmatic targets and instructional effects. There are only a few studies that taught multiple pragmatic targets to a single group of learners, or assessed learning on multiple aspects of pragmatic competence and they have revealed mixed intervention effects across targets (e.g., Bouton, 1994; Johnson & deHaan, 2013; Liddicoat & Crozet, 2001; Sykes, 2009, 2013). There are other studies that taught more than one pragmatic feature, but they did not report findings separately (Cunningham & Vyatkina 2012; Eslami & Eslami-Rasekh 2008; Louw et al., 2010). The targeting of two categories of speech act in the present study represents an effort to understand whether different pragmatic forms respond differently to the CF treatment.
Findings from speech act studies can be an invaluable source for second language
teachers and developers of teaching materials (Bardovi-Harlig, 1996). “It has been observed that teaching these pragmatic aspects of language can minimize intercultural communication
Concerning its application, this study has implications for ESL educators in the areas of teaching, assessment and syllabus design. The results of this study will further our understanding of the effectiveness of implementing pragmatics instruction and feedback in ESL learning
environments. It will also help us determine the impact of Face-to-Face and
Technology-Mediated delivery systems on learners’ pragmatic development. These results will be helpful to curriculum designers in developing teaching materials and tasks for practicing typical
expressions or patterns of learning English speech acts. Furthermore, the findings will also enable ESL teacher training institutions to equip prospective ESL teachers with necessary strategies to provide feedback that will best facilitate L2 pragmatic development.
1.5 Definitions of Terms in the Study
The present study focuses on feedback effects on ESL learners of how to use English request and refusals appropriately. The feedback modes are Face-to-Face and Technology-Mediated which are commonly used in previous studies. The treatment effects are measured by testing learners’ comprehension and production of English requests and refusals before and after treatment. The key term for the treatment in this study is corrective recast which is a type of corrective feedback. Other related terms are effects, English requests and refusals,
appropriateness, Face-to-Face, Technology-Mediated, pragmatic comprehension and production. These terms are used in different sections of the study, and some of them may be defined in detail in the main body of the thesis. However, they are listed alphabetically here with brief definitions for ease of reference:
Appropriateness
In their glossary, Culpeper et al. (2018) define appropriateness as “social oughts concerning what should happen according to authoritative standards of behavior and/or common social habits in a
particular context” (P. 203). In this study, appropriateness is operationalized as the appropriateness of using English requests and refusals and contains four aspects: correct expressions, quality of information, strategies choices and level of formality. These aspects are discussed in 3.7 in more details. The terms appropriacy and appropriateness are used
interchangeably throughout this study. Corrective Feedback (CF)
CF is “a type of feedback provided to L2 learners on their language use” (Culpeper et al. 2018, p. 203). This study adopts a complex type of oral corrective feedback, i.e., “corrective recast” (Doughty & Valera, 1998). Corrective recast has an explicit corrective stage to make erroneous forms more salient for the learners to focus on. In this type of CF, a recast is combined with other techniques such as an interrogative repetition, clarification request, and meta-linguistic information. The timing of this complex feedback is immediately after the erroneous form is produced by the learners. The specific feedback procedures employed in this study are further discussed in chapter two (2.5).
Effect
Effect refers to outcomes or results produced by an action or a cause. In the present study, the effect of treatment is used with and is defined as the achievements of FF or TM corrective recasts in pragmatic development of English requests and refusals. The achievements can be represented by the scores of a multiple-choice comprehension test and a role-play production test including learning or teaching effects after the treatment and the retention of appropriate English requests and refusals within three weeks after treatment.
English Refusals
interlocutor” (Chen, Ye & Zhang, 1995, p. 121). Most relevant to the present study is the finding that, people from different cultures find it challenging to produce negative responses to
invitations, suggestions, offers, or requests, as the refusal may cause conflict with the
interlocutor’s communicational purposes (Siebold & Busch, 2015). Therefore, refusals have been considered as face-threatening speech acts and as such they are generally performed through indirect strategies such as mitigation or long sequences of negotiation or “face-saving
maneuvers” (Uso-Juan, 2013, p. 66). This study particularly focuses on refusal (to request) as a more complex speech act type (See the example in the following section). More explanation on the complex nature of this speech act is presented in 2.2.
English Requests
Ellis (1994) defined requests as “an attempt on the part of the speaker to get the hearer to perform or to stop performing some kind of action” (p. 167). Although there are cross-cultural variations, according to Brown and Levinson (1987) and Leech (1983), direct requests are considered to be impolite, because they limit the hearer’s freedom, and indirectness is a way that speakers prefer to increase the degree of politeness. Therefore, it is vital that speakers use
appropriate forms of requests; otherwise, they might look rude or impolite, and this can lead to communication problems. The following conversation between two friends is an example of an appropriate English request and an appropriate refusal (to request) from Uso-Juan (2013, p. 87). Jack: Hi Claire! Can you help me with final project work? (Request)
Claire: Uhm. I’d love to. Sorry, but I have to study for an exam tomorrow. Tomorrow maybe? (Refusal)
ESL Learners
non-English-speaking backgrounds and typically need some form of instruction. ESL-learner participants of the present study came from various backgrounds and demonstrated an
intermediate proficiency in English at the beginning of the research. More information on the participants of this study is presented in 3.2.
Face-to-Face Feedback (FF)
Face-to-Face instruction is a mode of delivering instructional and assessment materials in the traditional classroom. In this study, FF feedback was delivered by teachers to ESL learners in regular classrooms without the use of any online learning and instruction.
Pragmatics
Crystal (1997) defines pragmatics as “the study of language from the point of view of users, especially of the choices they make, the constraints they encounter in using language in social interaction and the effects their use of language has on other participants in the act of
communication” (p. 301). Pragmatic Comprehension
In this study pragmatic comprehension is operationalized as decoding linguistic and contextual clues, and using them to understand speaker’s intention. According to Taguchi (2005), “real-time comprehension involves a rapid transformation of information into thought, or the ability to attend to and understand quickly the intended interpretations in contexts” (p. 546). L2 pragmatic comprehension can be a challenging task for language learners because “they have to recognize the gap between the literal utterance and the intended meaning and re-process literal cues to infer implied meaning” (Culpeper et al., 2018, p.112). There are different ways to research pragmatic comprehension such as multiple-choice tests and recognition tasks as well as meta-pragmatic awareness tests such as interviews and diaries. This study has taken multiple-choice discourse
completion test (MDCT). The reason for choosing this test and how it measures pragmatic comprehension are further discussed in Chapter 3 (section 3.7.1)
Pragmatic Production
Pragmatic production is operationalized in this study as the ability of learners to productively demonstrate their ability to understand and respond to a communicative scenario. Specifically, this study focuses on learners’ ability to orally produce appropriate requests and refusals as prompted by communicative scenarios in an oral role-play test (RP). (See 3.7.2 for more details) Speech act
According to Culpeper et al. (2018), a speech act is “An utterance that performs a
communicative action, such as a refusal, request, or promise” (p. 210). The target speech acts in this study are requests and refusals (see the definitions above)
Technology-Mediated Feedback (TM)
Technology-Mediated Learning (TML) is an ‘umbrella' term, incorporating different approaches to using computers in learning and teaching. In TML environment, teaching materials,
assignments, and assessments are exchanged between learners and instructors via advanced technology. Computer-assisted language learning (CALL) and computer-mediated
communication (CMC) are subcategories of TML. This study used mobile technology in promoting ESL learners’ pragmatic competence. The specific application used in this study is WeChat (see 3.6 for more details). This application was used both by participants of the study in making video calls for performing target speech acts and by the teacher in listening to learners’ role-plays and giving online feedback.
1.6 Outline of the Dissertation
purpose, and significance of the present study. Chapter two provides a review of the literature concerning the development of pragmatics, feedback studies and the application of technology in L2 pragmatics. It starts with the main theoretical frameworks of the study namely, Schmidt’s noticing theory and Long’s interaction hypothesis and continues with the theories that explain second language pragmatics competence with special attention given to speech act theories and politeness theories. This is followed by a review of literature on the role of pedagogical
intervention in developing L2 pragmatic competence focusing on studies on feedback, requests and refusals. This chapter also provides a discussion of the merits of integrating technology into language learning classrooms and reviews relevant studies that employed technology in L2 pragmatics. Chapter two ends with the research questions and hypotheses. Chapter three provides an overview of the research methodology used in the present research study. This chapter first narrates the research design and then describes the participants, treatment groups, and the procedure including the instruments used, and the pilot study. Chapter four focuses on the results. The data elicited through the MDCT and the RP tests in pre, post, and delayed tests are analyzed quantitatively. This chapter presents the findings derived from the statistical analysis with regards to the effects of CF on request and refusal development delivered in Face-to-Face and Technology-Mediated modalities. Chapter five discusses the results and major findings of the study. The results are interpreted with regard to the theoretical frameworks of the study and a comparison of the previous studies. This last chapter further presents the theoretical and
pedagogical implications of the findings and ends with a discussion on the limitations of the present research. Finally, this chapter provides directions for further research.
1.7 Summary
present research. It clarified the importance of this study through discussing the significance and rationale of the study. Instructional L2 pragmatic research has evolved into a thriving research field during the past three decades. The role of corrective feedback, however, remains rather unexplored in this area. Different types and delivery modes of corrective feedback can have differential effects on developing L2 pragmatics. The next chapter reviews the studies relevant to these issues including the theoretical background of pragmatic research, the studies on corrective feedback, and technology-mediated studies on L2 pragmatics.
CHAPTER TWO- LITERATURE REVIEW 2.0 Introduction
This chapter provides background to the present study by describing key theoretical foundations of second language (L2) pragmatics research on the one hand and reviewing the related literature on the other. In the first part, definitions of pragmatics and pragmatics theories are provided with special attention given to speech act theory, the conversation principle of cooperation, and politeness theory. The two pragmatic targets of the study, requests and refusals, are introduced next and discussed in terms of the construct of complexity. This is followed by definitions of communicative competence and pragmatic competence and their applications in second language acquisition (SLA). Next, an overview of Schmidt’s noticing hypothesis and Long’s interaction hypothesis are discussed as the main SLA theoretical frameworks of the study. This chapter also introduces corrective feedback and discusses the types and roles of feedback in developing L2 pragmatic competence. Major data elicitation tools in L2 pragmatics are introduced next and the two methods that are used in the study are discussed in more details. The next section reviews the literature that relates closely to the present study including the target speech acts and feedback roles in L2 pragmatics and links them to the theoretical issues that were presented in previous sections. Finally, technology-mediated approaches to second language pragmatics are introduced and the related literature is reviewed. The chapter concludes with a summary of the reviewed theories and literature.
2.1. Pragmatics
“The term pragmatics was originally used within the philosophy of language (Morris, 1938) and later extended into sociolinguistics and other disciplines” (Eslami & Liu, 2013, p. 53). According to Culpeper et al. (2018), pragmatics “is a branch of linguistics that focuses on
meanings that arise from the use of communicative resources in context, and in particular, the meanings implied by speakers, inferred by hearers, and negotiated between them in interaction” (p.208).
One of the most important notions in pragmatics is the concept of speech act is. The term denotes the sense in which utterances do not merely bear meanings, but rather in a very real sense do things, that is, perform functions (Levinson, 2016).
2.2 Pragmatic Competence
In 1971, Hymes introduced the notion of communicative competence. “communicative competence can be defined as the ability to use language, or to communicate, in a culturally appropriate manner in order to make meaning and accomplish social tasks with efficacy and fluency through extended interactions” (Travin 2014, p. 6). Hymes’ communicative competence model consists of two areas of competence: grammatical competence and sociolinguistic
competence. Based on this model, L2 speakers must be able to navigate the sociocultural contexts in which they must actually use the language because the mastery of surface level structures, understanding denotative word meanings and being able to construct grammatically correct sentences, is insufficient for achieving communicative competence (Travin 2014).
Later, a number of models of communicative competence emerged which were inspired by Hymes’ attention to communicative competence. Some of these models situated pragmatic competence among several interrelated components of language knowledge that enable learners to perform a communicative act in a social situation. These models did not distinguish between sociolinguistic and pragmatic competence. However, in 1990, Bachman developed a framework of communicative competence that viewed pragmatic competence as a competence on its own right. In their 1996 model of communicative ability, Bachman and Palmer distinguished three
components: organizational knowledge, pragmatic knowledge, and strategic competence. See Figure 2.1 for a model of communicative competence by Bachman and Palmer.
According to Bachman (1990), pragmatic competence includes the types of knowledge that are employed in contextualized performance and interpretation of socially appropriate illocutionary acts in discourse, in addition to organizational competence.
Figure 2.1. Bachman's communicative competence model (Bachman & Palmer, 1996, p. 68)
Based on this model, pragmatic competence includes functional and sociolinguistic knowledge (Bachman & Palmer, 2010). Xiao (2015) explained the two types of knowledge:
Functional knowledge represents the knowledge of using linguistic forms to realize pragmatic functions, such as using would you to make a request, while sociolinguistic knowledge is the knowledge of using linguistic forms appropriately according to different situational variables (e.g., social status, familiarity, power relationship, and degree of imposition), such as choosing polite forms when speaking to people of higher social status (p. 559).
A similar distinction between these two types of knowledge was also introduced into pragmatics. Functional knowledge or the range of linguistic resources available to perform language functions was called pragmalinguistics by Leech (1983) and Thomas (1983), while the ability to understand features of context and selecting the most appropriate linguistic resource in a given context was called sociopragmatics. According to Taguchi (2013), “pragmatic
competence requires both types of knowledge, as well as processing skills that mobilize this knowledge in real time communication” (p. 1). For instance, when performing a speech act of request, there are various ways of requesting the loan of something such as “Give me that book” Versus “Could I borrow that book?” Versus “I was wondering if it isn’t too much of a bother, whether you might consider loaning me that book, just for a little while?” (van Compernolle, 2014, p. 3). In this way, pragmalingistics includes the conventional linguistic tools used to mediate the communicative action of requesting. However, speakers do not simply use
pragmalinguistic resources randomly. Sociopragmatic knowledge enables the speakers to make choices from among pragmalinguistic resources based on the conventions of ‘proper’ or
‘appropriate’ social behavior including what to say to whom and when, as well as an
understanding of the social consequences of conforming to or breaking those conventions (van Compernolle, 2014, p. 3). For instance, a speaker makes different choices when requesting the loan of something from his/her professor or when requesting from his/her friend. Figure 2.2 illustrates the relationship between the linguistic means available to speakers
(pragmalinguistics), and the speakers’ knowledge of sociocultural schemas, concepts and social relations (sociopragmatics).
Figure 2.2. General pragmatics, pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics (Culpeper et al., 2018, p. 30)
By considering pragmatic competence within a framework of communicative
competence, we can see that L2 pragmatics behaviors can be best examined by analyzing what L2 learners actually do in interaction. Following this line of thought, Culpeper et al. (2018) went a step further and added an important dimension to the previous definitions of pragmatic
competence by arguing that “it is equally important to study how learners come to understand or comprehend meaning, as well as how they negotiate and co-construct meaning” (p.1). This study relies on Culpeper et al.’s definition of pragmatic competence and therefore views
comprehension, production, and interaction as central to developing pragmatic competence. According to Nguyen (2019), pragmatic production refers to “the production of meaning in social contexts (e.g., speech acts and humor)” (p196). Pragmatic production is the most researched area in L2 pragmatics. Of the 246 empirical studies Nguyen (2019) reviewed, 88% (217 studies) examined pragmatic production (both spoken and written).
While pragmatic comprehension is an important ability for L2 learners, its development has received the least attention within L2 pragmatic studies (Kasper & Rose, 2002, p. 118). For instance, of the 246 studies Nguyen (2019) surveyed, only 54 investigated pragmatic
comprehension and perception (p. 200). According to Taguchi (2005, p. 544), “Pragmatic comprehension involves the ability to understand implied speaker intention by using linguistic knowledge, contextual clues, and the assumption of relevance (Grice, 1975; Levinson, 1983; Sperber & Wilson, 1995; Thomas, 1995)”.
In summary, based on Culpeper et al.’s definition of pragmatic competence, carrying out studies that only target the production of aspect of competence does not contribute to an
understanding of this notion. In order to capture a better picture of development of pragmatic competence, this study investigates both pragmatic comprehension and pragmatic production.
The learning or acquisition of pragmatic competence is closely related to interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) or second language pragmatic (L2 pragmatic) development which is an
interdisciplinary field covering two areas: pragmatics and second language acquisition. However, language acquisition research often does not match classroom practices. Ishihara (2007) writes:
Although pragmatic ability (the ability to use language effectively to achieve a specific purpose and understand language in context) has been recognized as an essential
component of communicative competence…, pragmatics has not been fully incorporated into today’s second/foreign language (L2) teaching and teacher education [emphasis in original] (p. 21).
Given the complexities of pragmatics that involve the connections among forms, functions, and contexts, one would naturally wonder whether pragmatic competence is indeed teachable (Taguchi, 2013). Studies that have addressed teachability (whether instruction is better than no instruction) strongly suggest that most aspects of L2 pragmatics are indeed amenable to instruction, that instructional intervention is more beneficial than no instruction targeted to
pragmatic learning, and that for the most part, explicit instruction combined with ample practice opportunities results in great gains (Kasper & Roever, 2005, see Jeon & Kaya, 2006, for review). 2.3 Theoretical Frameworks
Second language acquisition (SLA) theories and the field of L2 pragmatics are strongly connected. Various SLA theories guide L2 pragmatics research by providing a multiple
framework that helps explain the development of the L2 pragmatic system. The last decade has seen an increasing diversity in SLA theory in general. As a result, a range of theoretical
paradigms in L2 pragmatics research has emerged. Some of these theoretical foundations include: The Noticing hypothesis (Schmidt, 1993, 2001), Skill acquisitions theory (Anderson, 1982), Language socialization theory (Kanagy, 1999), Dynamic systems theory (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008), and the Interaction approach (Long, 1996). Besides these language
acquisition theories, there are also classic pragmatic frameworks that are important in understanding the kind of pragmatics that informs L2 pragmatics. The two most influential pragmatic frameworks are Speech act theory (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969) and Politeness theory (Brown & Levinson, 1987). This study builds on the noticing hypothesis from the work of Schmidt (1990, 1993a, 1994a, 1995) and the interaction hypothesis (Long, 1996) as the foundation for investigating the effect of corrective feedback in the acquisition of second
language pragmatic knowledge. The speech acts theory of Austin (1962), the politeness theory of Brown and Levinson (1987), and the conversational maxim of Grice (1975) provide a framework for the analysis of the pragmatic competence of the ESL learners in this study. Those models are described in the following sections.
2.3.1 Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis
conscious process in L2 acquisition. Noticing Hypothesis introduced by Schmidt (1990) states that “people learn about the things that they attend to and do not learn much about the things they do not attend to” (Schmidt, 2001, p.30). This hypothesis emphasizes that in order for the input to become intake, the detection of input in the form of awareness and attention is necessary
(Schmidt, 1995). Intake is part of the input which is being paid attention to and is taken into short-term memory and consequently is integrated into the interlanguage, a language
independent from both the learner’s native language and the target language (Selinker, 1972). As Schmidt (1990, 2001) claims, “Not all input has equal value and only that input which is noticed then becomes available for intake and effective processing. This hypothesis claims that for acquisition to take place, learners must consciously notice forms (and the meanings these forms realize) in the input. Schmidt’s noticing hypothesis accounts for initial input recognition and focuses on the importance of attention and consciousness (1993) in second-language acquisition. This theory is a response to some previous research which claimed that learning a language is a primarily unconscious process (Chomsky, 1990; Gregg, 1984; Krashen, 1982; Seliger, 1983).
The Noticing hypothesis has been used not only in the literature on language acquisition theory but also in the literature on L2 pragmatic research as well as on corrective feedback. In language acquisition, the role of attention has been argued to be a necessary process in language acquisition. In L2 pragmatics, “one must attend to both the linguistic forms of utterances and the relevant social and contextual features with which they are associated” (Schmidt, 2001, p.30). Finally, noticing hypothesis has been used in corrective feedback, because feedback prompts learners to notice L2 forms and therefore facilitates L2 learning (Mackey, 2006).
In studies of second-language acquisition, Schmidt found evidence that supports the role of consciousness in learning a language. Schmidt (2001) pointed out that global alertness to
target language input is not sufficient; attention has to be allocated to specific learning targets, or directed to whatever evidence is relevant for a particular domain. As Schmidt and Frota (1986) suggest “a second language learner will begin to acquire the target-like form if, and only if, it is present in comprehended input and ‘noticed’ in the normal sense of the word, that is,
consciously” (p. 311).
Empirical support for the facilitative effects of awareness on second language behavior and, consequently, for Schmidt’s (1990 and elsewhere) noticing hypothesis, has been found in various studies (e.g., Carroll & Swain, 1993; Doughty & Valera, 1998; Ellis, 2001; Nassaji & Fotos, 2004; Robinson, 1995; Schmidt, 1993, 2001; VanPatten, 2002). Schmidt (1993) extended his discussion about consciousness and learning to the field of L2 pragmatics. He focused on the ways consciousness may be involved in learning the principles of discourse and pragmatics in a second language. Schmidt distinguishes between consciousness as attention and consciousness as awareness. According to Schmidt (2010, p. 724), attention refers “to a variety of mechanisms or subsystems, including alertness, orientation, detection within selective attention, facilitation, and inhibition”. The common feature among all these mechanisms is “the function of controlling information processing and behavior when existing skills and routines are inadequate” (p. 724). Based on this definition, learning (establishing new or modified knowledge, memory, skills, and routines) is “therefore largely, and perhaps exclusively, a side effect of attended processing” (p.725). On the other hand, Schmidt associates awareness with understanding and defines awareness as “the implicit knowledge that is acquired without conscious effort to learn” (p.725). In addition, Schmidt distinguishes between the concepts of noticing and understanding. Noticing is defined as the “conscious registration of the occurrence of some event,” while understanding implies “the recognition of some general principle, rule, or pattern.” According to Schmidt
(2010), knowledge of rules and metalinguistic awareness of all kinds belong to this higher level of awareness, i.e. understanding. Schmidt claims that “noticing is necessary for SLA, and that understanding is facilitative but not required” (2010, p.725). Schmidt (1995) applied his distinction between noticing and understanding to pragmatics as follows:
In pragmatics, awareness that on a particular occasion someone says to their interlocutor something like, ‘I’m terribly sorry to bother you, but if you have time could you please look at this problem?’ is a matter of noticing. Relating the various forms used to their strategic development in the service of politeness and recognizing their co-occurrence with elements of context such as social distance, power, level of imposition and so on, are all matter of understating (p. 30).
Schmidt (1993) concluded that “for the learning of pragmatics in a second language, attention to linguistic forms, functional meanings, and the relevant contextual features is required” (p.35). The results obtained by some researchers (e.g. Fukuya & Clark, 2001; Silva, 2003; Takshashi, 2005) in the field of ILP studies support Schmidt’s (1993) noticing hypothesis, since they illustrated how conscious attention to specific target language features promoted L2 learning.
Noticing hypothesis also plays a role in feedback research when learners attempt to express or negotiate their meaning and they notice their non-target-like utterances. As Nassaji (2015, p. 75) claims, “When learners compare their original output with the teacher’s or
interlocutor’s output, they notice the gap and they realize that their interlanguage differs from the target language (Swain 1998; Williams, 2005). Feedback strategies such as recasts promote noticing the gap. When the teacher (or an interlocutor) reformulates a learner’s erroneous utterance into a correct form, the learner may compare his/her output to the teacher’s output and notice the gap. According to Kartchava and Nassaji (2019), “it is impossible to measure noticing
directly (but see Long, 2017) as this is an unobservable mental process” (p.411). However, researchers can use various indirect techniques to assess noticing, including questionnaires, learning journals, eye tracking, various introspective and retrospective measures (i.e., think-aloud, talk-think-aloud, stimulated recall), and learner reports (e.g., Kartchava & Ammar, 2013; Mackey, 2006; Philp, 2003). This study makes no provisions to investigate the construct of noticing; rather it highlights the role that noticing plays in corrective feedback process.
Related to the role of feedback and noticing is also the concept of Focus on Form (FonF) which is widely advocated in L2 pedagogical research. The notion of FonF was first introduced by Long (1991). According to him, FonF “overtly draws students’ attention to linguistic
elements as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning or communication” (Long, 1991, p. 45-46). In a more operational sense with consideration of classroom instruction, Long and Robinson (1998) further stated that Focus on Form “consists of an occasional shift of attention to linguistic code features – by the teacher and/or one or more students – triggered by perceived problems with comprehension or production” (p. 23). FonF can be accomplished in various ways. There is a continuum of techniques varying in terms of the degree of explicitness. As one way to attempt Focus on Form, conversational interaction has gained great attention in second language acquisition studies since the beginning of the 1980s (Guo, 2013). Interaction research is largely driven by three interrelated hypotheses, namely, noticing hypothesis (Schmidt, 1993), interaction hypothesis (Long 1981, 1983a, 1996), and output hypothesis (Swain, 1985, 1995). The following section describes interaction hypothesis as one of the main theoretical foundations of the present study in more detail.
2.3.2 Long’s Interaction Hypothesis
learner engages in negotiation for meaning that results from message incomprehensibility during interaction” (Lyster et al., 2013, p.10). Learners can test their hypotheses in interaction and receive feedback about their communicative success along with opportunities for modifying their non-target output. Long’s interaction hypothesis is an extension of Krashen’s input hypothesis which is closely related to the idea of making input more comprehensible, and the gap between target language and interlanguage noticeable to language learners. In his research in 1981 and 1983, Long found that when native speakers talk to non-native speakers, they modified their speech to make it more comprehensible. Native speakers also used more conversational strategies (e.g., confirmation check and repetition) to solve communication problems. Long argued that in order for learning to take place, it is not enough to only receive input. It is through this modified input of their conversation partners during conversational interaction that second language learners may have access to input made comprehensible to them, which leads to possible intake. According to Long (1991), interaction or negotiation of meaning makes input comprehensible, which in turn leads to second language acquisition. As a response to this model, Swain (1993) proposed the output hypothesis and argued that even comprehensible input may not be enough for L2 language learning. Swain (1993) suggested that “Learners need to be pushed to make use of their resources; they need to have their linguistic abilities stretched to their fullest; they need to reflect on their output and consider ways of modifying it to enhance comprehensibility, appropriateness, and accuracy” (p. 160-161). Based on output model, language learning takes place while learners engage in conversational interaction, receive feedback, struggle to reformulate and make their output comprehensible to their interlocutors. Swain and Lapkin (1995) also argued that interactive feedback and language production may lead learners to notice the gap between their interlanguage and target language. Noticing the gap
